Concerns were expressed by opposition councillors that this might be the thin end of the wedge and that a £35 charge would soon be increased.

The devil of the scheme will be in the detail:

- how will they deal with 'pirate' tipping (people dumping their garden waste in others' bins)?

- how can they stop people from putting the waste in black bags in their black bins? And whether they can legally stop them even if they wanted to.

- how much extra work / expenditure will be generated by a likely increase in fly-tipping / illegal bonfires?

- how will they deal with payment defaulters?

Comments suggested that there is a forthcoming debate on increasing Council tax, if so, why not simply add it to the expected increase in Council tax - especially given it's budgeted to cost £100k to set up the administration for the new scheme?

At least one person was filming the meeting so there may be a copy of it on social media. If so, I recommend watching it.

Perhaps buoyed by the boundary changes (and the withdrawal of his forum), Grant has publicly declared his support for the brown bin charge.

Grant Shapps praises council after brown bins charge passed - WHT 18/01/2017 p5"He stressed the importance of financial prudence amidst government funding cuts, and praised the local authority for careful financial management that enabled eight years of freezing council tax."

He seems to have conveniently overlooked the cuts to services - especially in Hatfield, which seems to bear the brunt of things - that have taken place.

It's the old chestnut - reduce cost prices rather than raise selling prices (like manufacturers reduce the size of their confectionery rather than increase the price).

Unfortunately WHT hadn't published the article online when I made the post (I checked) otherwise I would have included the link.

That said, if you feel you've been misquoted you could set the record straight here.

I fail to see how a separate brown bin charge - as opposed to an increase in council tax - represents good value for money for residents.

Already we've had over £9k spent on a single leaflet, with an initial £100k set aside to set up the scheme. While potentially increased costs and workload due to flytipping, dealing with payment defaulters, complaints about bonfires.... have been highlighted in Reply#60 above.

And there's also potentially increased use of Council facilities (Cole Green Lane), which will also have a financial impact. Plus, there's the environmental and health damage - which will add to the NHS's woes.

I also profoundly disagree with your assessment of the effectiveness of WHC's "careful financial management".

As already highlighted, there have been cuts to everything from bus services, library services, street-lighting and cleaning...(while many of these are HCC services they are paid for from Council tax, as is the Police Commissioner).

Then there's the sorry saga of Hatfield town centre and Hilltop / Highview redevelopments - years of delay and excuses (and the ineffective Portas Project) - and potentially millions lost from unrealised rents, business rates and council tax.

You mentioned Slough Estates in the article (while not excusing the Labour leader of the time, the situation was a direct result of a previous Conservative Government's reforms that lumped the widely differing Welwyn, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City under a single local planning authority). And it was used for years as a convenient and false excuse as to why there was allegedly no money to proceed with Hatfield redevelopments.

Between 2003-09 WHBC Capital Commitments (basically large spending projects mentioned in their accounts) showed over £7.1m spent on improvements in WGC with a paltry £0.28m spent on Hatfield. Add over £1 million given in various forms to Gosling Sports Park and that becomes over £8.1m vs. £0.28m (this does not include £20k spent on placing an old boat on the roundabout by Stanborough Lakes).

Thousands were spent on public consultations and plans for the Hilltop redevelopment and years later nothing has been done.

But money was spent on artificial football pitches (without a proper consultation) and high ropes courses.

i dont think grant was celebrating the fact that we all have to spend 35 quid but more commenting on the fact they are trying to save money-a miracle in itself if they can. I can see how this wont be popular at all, but as a user of the brown bin say 15 times a year i guess i can shred and mulch the waste. Its definitely a pain in the backside but sadly nobody wants rubbish anymore-but its got to go somewhere and someones got to pay for it. The reality will be, I think, huge usage increases on municipal services from dump runs to flytipping. But thats probably anpther council spreadsheet so they can bury the cost! Onwards BP!!

If you take just all the economic migrants providing additional tax receipts for central and local government with economies of scale factored then we should be seeing the council deficits heading in the black shouldn't we?

The usual primary purpose of taxation is to raise money for the coffers (taxation is also a useful tool in protecting embryonic / strategic industries and modifying behaviour - by increasing the price to deter actions deemed 'harmful' or undesirable, an example of that being the landfill escalator tax).

In the interests of maximising returns to the public purse, a tax should be easy and inexpensive to collect and difficult to avoid / evade.

The current bins collections - and transport and disposal of collected waste - is not free. This work is done and paid for through council tax and any grant / subsidy from county or central government (who in turn get the money to do that mainly through taxation, licensing and fines).

Now there are perfectly understandable reasons for increasing council tax - such as, government grant cuts, increases in the minimum wage, and increased demand for services.

I'd argue that the logical and sensible course of action is for WHC to increase Council tax by £35 rather than create a separate 'tax', which will need additional resources to create, administer and enforce.

The argument is reinforced by the high probability of increased fly-tipping, bonfires, greater use of facilities, like Cole Green...generating additional work and costs. Plus, there will be some households which will opt out. All of which reduces the tax take / money available.

Common sense does not have any political affiliation or axe to grind.

Consequently, for WHC to proceed along this path suggests some other motivation - possibly a general policy shift towards pay-as-you-go council services; an intention to further reduce local government (as far as waste services go it would make more economic sense to organise and run on a much larger scale than district or even county level); an intention to create additional payment / income streams for political purposes (previous governments have claimed not to have raised / cut income tax - while increasing NI contributions, imposing VAT, increasing VAT..., and assume the electorate is too stupid to figure out the sleight of hand); to provide sufficient quantities of waste for the Hoddesdon incinerator (if the contract with Veolia is like the New Barnfield one, HCC would be liable for penalties if they didn't provide a guaranteed tonnage of waste annually - a liability that would ultimately be paid for by residents - which would have a political cost); or some other reason.

If you take just all the economic migrants providing additional tax receipts for central and local government with economies of scale factored then we should be seeing the council deficits heading in the black shouldn't we?

Logically, that depends on the new arrivals contributing an amount equal or greater to the amount needed to provide for them - and their families (which could include retired, infirm and going to school).

There is an interesting breakdown included in the 'Report of the Inquiry into securing the status of EEA+ nationals in the UK,' released last month:

It's worth noting:Self employed is nebulous - could be anything from a highly qualified architect to a Big Issuer seller or finger artist / pickpocket; and many of the 'under 16' will be in school (at a cost of thousands per child. A recent report gave a figure of £5,500 per child per year but that may have been for high school education).

The exact numbers of EU migrants in the UK is hard to establish as different sources give different figures (and as many are now claiming UK citizenship they may cease to be classed as EU migrants). This report puts the number at around 2.8 million. Migrationwatch gives a higher total:

"There are 3.2 million UK residents who were born in other parts of the EU, including 2.3 million workers. These residents should be allowed to remain in the UK post-Brexit, provided that there are reciprocal arrangements for the 1.2 million Britons who currently live in other parts of the EU."https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/european-union

As far as Welwyn Hatfield is concerned, thanks to the policies of the various councils, I expect the impact to be significant.

This is because years of broken promises and negative developments - proposed New Barnfield incinerator; UH's CHP; disturbance from unruly student houses...has driven many local residents to give up and move away (a resident of Briars Lane I know moved out this month - he mentioned the ever-increasing congestion - as the 'Free School' adds another year's intake - as a significant factor).

It has also put off people / families from moving into the town. However, property prices have increased as there is a significant demand for buy-to-let properties. These are often converted into Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) - Hatfield has the highest number of these in the district.

Mainly occupied by students and migrant workers HMOs are often over-crowded, poorly maintained and a source of litter / flytipping (often someone doesn't take their turn to do the housekeeping - the rubbish piles up and attracts vermin, and eventually someone will pile them into a vehicle and take them away, where they end up is anyone's guess (but I know a of an HMO near me where, according to another neighbour, they were dumping it at Stream Woods / Howe Dell Nature Reserve).

I've had the opportunity to observe HMOs for years, and there seems to be no policing of them by the Council.

An HMO in a 3-bedroom, terraced house near me, appeared to be hosting 6 adults, 2 kids (both attending local schools) and a dog. They were the source of much disturbance (I've seen the Police in attendance at least twice) and irritation. The key point being all these people but just one Council tax payment.

In fairness, not everyone in an HMO is a pain. Many behave in a civilised manner and don't blight the street.

It seems that at least some landlords (and ladies) are over-filling their properties to maximise their returns (and probably paying off the mortgage so they can use the equity to take out loans to buy even more properties).

So unless WHC gets its act together and starts actively reducing the number of HMOs and monitoring existing ones more closely, expect more unruly behaviour (flytipping and police call outs cost money) and more demands on services.

---------------------------------------------------

Report of the Inquiry into securing the status of EEA+ nationals in the UK"The Inquiry panel included voices from Leave and Remain, different political parties and from business and trade unions and was chaired by Gisela Stuart MP, former Chair of the Vote Leave campaign. Its remit was to examine how the Government can protect the rights of the 3 million EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit and to make practical recommendations as to how to do this, starting from the premise that this is the right thing to do."http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/eu-nationals-report/

Interesting - according to Point 3, Pg.8, they have rights that UK nationals don't:

"3. EEA+ nationals living in the UK enjoy some privileges over UK and non-EEA+ nationals in relation to family migration, in that they can bring immediate family members to the UK without having to fulfil a minimum income threshold and show a basic level of English language competency. "

How about re-rating our homes and charging those that have been the recipients of massive house price increases as the government underwrites the property market and keeps interest rates artificially low - people like myself - a higher Community Charge so they take more of a tax burden. Once that was considered a logical response. Post Thatcher it is deemed left wing radicalism. Why not ask those that can afford it to contribute more ?

Yep that may be true but is in not worth a try ? We are passing on these costs to everyone so , if by your logic those in expensive properties may not be able to afford it is it more or less likely that generically those in the poorer parts of the Borough can afford it either ? The concept of Progressive Taxation is just an anathema to too many.

How about re-rating our homes and charging those that have been the recipients of massive house price increases as the government underwrites the property market and keeps interest rates artificially low - people like myself - a higher Community Charge so they take more of a tax burden. Once that was considered a logical response. Post Thatcher it is deemed left wing radicalism. Why not ask those that can afford it to contribute more ?

Absolutely not! why no go after those who choose not to pay rather than relying constantly on those they can be squeezed to balance the books. those of us in unadapted/private roads have to pay for the maintenance of our roads with no council tax reduction, together with fewer public services what do we actually get for our money.

I would guess the majority of those who have high value homes are higher than average earners and have subsequently paid more income tax into the public purse already.

Larry you are spot on: those in higher value homes generically will have paid more in tax; all things being equal etc. It's just a philosophy on life. You are either happy with an ever more divided and economically polarized society or you are not. I am not and would happily pay more tax as a result. An extra £35 on my Community Charge is fine by me if helps to keep the streets clean, helps to minimize Fly-Tipping ( the increase of which is the obvious outcome here) and helps therefore to maintain our local environment. We have a Tory MP , a Tory County Council and a Tory Local authority. I accept I am in the minority locally. So I assume that you are happy with this new £35 tax as long as 'we' (sic.) all have to pay it ?

A problem with this approach is that house market values are not in the control of the incumbent residents - it is those who do not live here, but desire to do so, which push the values up. These in turn may have been flushed away from the metropolis by the burdens entrained in the rising values there. We had periodic noises from the Cameron government hinting that pricing people out of particular regions was an equitable way of easing housing shortages there.

The real objection to the waste collection charge is that it clearly has not been competently costed, as the council cannot produce figures for the costs of administration, and the alternative arrangements for food waste handling, let alone the environmental costs which will certainly ensue.

The real objection to the waste collection charge is that it clearly has not been competently costed, as the council cannot produce figures for the costs of administration, and the alternative arrangements for food waste handling, let alone the environmental costs which will certainly ensue.

I thought that the bin collections were subcontracted to Serco? If that is the case then I'm guessing Serco will bill the local council at a reduced rate re the reduced level of service in which case the savings generated are clearly visible. Maybe the council are looking to allocate some money elsewhere? My guess its to fund the out of control final salary pension schemes of our civil servants?

I don't think a tax based on how much property values have increased is necessarily fair as this is a 'paper' increase (until the property is actually sold - and then they'll need to find somewhere else to live, which is also likely to have increased in price), so does not reflect a real improvement in a household's finances.

Although I think there is scope for increasing stamp duty especially on more expensive homes / increasing the tax rate on rental income / inheritance tax levels on higher value properties / a premium tax on overseas buyers (I saw a news package recently where an oriental buyer said he was looking at buying several smaller properties in the outskirts of London to avoid a stamp duty increase). At a local level, there could be an annual HMO licensing and a stricter enforcement of regulations - no leaving your bins out for days if not weeks; parking your vehicles on the pavement and grass verges; drinking in the supposedly alcohol free zone...

We seem to be heading for the perfect storm - increasing our population by millions, especially since EU enlargement; wages - and therefore income tax take - being driven down; automation set to wipe out a massive number of skilled and unskilled jobs; increasing pollution increasing demands on health services (plus, those created by an ageing population and improved treatments increasing survivability and life expectancy).

Incidentally, Sky has a documentary report A Plastic Tide- on tonight on Sky News (available via Freeview) at 8pm / 20:00, which graphically shows the impact of plastic pollution, and reveals that plastic microparticles have entered the food chain and is being absorbed into our bodies with, so far at least, unknown consequences.

The government needs to take radical and immediate action to address issues that have been swept under the carpet or given token treatment for far too long - and now is returning to cast a spectre over all our futures.

I wonder how much of taxpayers' money went on the Veolia New Barnfield battle (and I imagine the fight against the Hoddesdon scheme isn't over yet either)? Multiply this across the country - where identical battles were fought.

Then consider how Government action to reduce waste could have easily made the requirement for so many of these battles completely unnecessary.

The plastic bag tax showed how easy it was to drastically reduce demand for them. A plastic bottle recycling scheme in Norway has a 96% success rate there.

How bottle deposit scheme boosts recycling"Britain could almost double the number of plastic bottles that are recycled by adding a small deposit charge to every sale, according to new evidence. The latest figures available from Norway, which has the world's most effective Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) on plastic drinks bottles, show 96% are returned by consumers for recycling."http://news.sky.com/story/sky-ocean-rescue-calls-for-uk-plastic-bottle-deposit-scheme-10741655

We need joined up thinking and part of the problem is that local authorities seem to be purely considering their own narrow remit rather than the national good. For reasons already given this Garden Waste scheme makes no sense to me.

Its about getting back to basics - the UK economy is nothing more than a all encompassing balance sheet, put simply you ensure all those that are ABLE to contribute do, and in turn allocate revenues fairly within your means.

That is what has not happened and why we find ourselves in this fiscal mess.

As mentioned correctly in the previous post we need some joined up thinking by all the authorities who are trusted with the public purse, it should be a prerequisite that any senior civil servant must have been employed in the commercial sector for a number of years before taking up any senior role.

So roughly the first 1000 people paying £35 per brown bin will be funding this new job?

I wonder what they will think of next to charge us twice for? I already pay £2600 pa Council tax and we seem to get less and less by way of services. Not happy, seriously considering moving away from WelHat as feel taken for granted. Have coughed up for more than 30 years, just don't feel that we are getting value for money, and I am not alone.

Its about getting back to basics - the UK economy is nothing more than a all encompassing balance sheet, put simply you ensure all those that are ABLE to contribute do, and in turn allocate revenues fairly within your means.

Therein lies the rub. It would be lovely to think that everyone contributes fairly according to their means, but I suspect tax evasion and the cash-in-hand economy disrupt the ideal model.

Logged

The Brookmans Park Newsletter has been supporting the village and our local community since 1998 by providing free, interactive tools for all to use.

Although I think there is scope for increasing stamp duty especially on more expensive homes / increasing the tax rate on rental income / inheritance tax levels on higher value properties / a premium tax on overseas buyers (I saw a news package recently where an oriental buyer said he was looking at buying several smaller properties in the outskirts of London to avoid a stamp duty increase). At a local level, there could be an annual HMO licensing and a stricter enforcement of regulations - no leaving your bins out for days if not weeks; parking your vehicles on the pavement and grass verges; drinking in the supposedly alcohol free zone...

Additionally or alternatively, there could be an increase in Capital Gains Tax on the sale rental properties (with safeguards against 'flipping' and other avoidance measures).

... it should be a prerequisite that any senior civil servant must have been employed in the commercial sector for a number of years before taking up any senior role.

Thank you for your kind comments. And I'd agree that we need a good 'drains up' / back to basics.

I've worked in both the private and public sectors and encountered good and bad managers in both.

However, I think there is something of a widespread urban myth about the efficacy of the private sector:

- Thousands of private sector businesses go bust every year.

- They tried hiring managers from the private sector to 'help' the NHS - as I recall it greatly inflated the wage bill but failed to provide real performance improvements to justify it. Indeed, their 'solution' for patients having to wait over 48 hours to get an appointment was not to make any appointments over 48 hours.

- the financial crash of Long Term Capital Management (late 1990s) and the more recent 2008 one (with the demise of 'masters of the universe' like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers) - a whole sector apparently caught out on the hop.

- the decimation of pension funds (with the exception of John Ralfe - credited as the man who saw a collapse in share values coming and shifted the Boots pension fund into bonds around 2001).

- Some former stars of the private sector who now may be available for hire: Nick Leeson (ex-Barings), Fred Goodwin (ex-RBS) and Philip Green (ex-BHS).

I'd suggest that senior civil servants be placed on short term contracts instead. That way if they can't justfiy why they should be hired for another stint they can be replaced.

Its about getting back to basics - the UK economy is nothing more than a all encompassing balance sheet, put simply you ensure all those that are ABLE to contribute do, and in turn allocate revenues fairly within your means.

Therein lies the rub. It would be lovely to think that everyone contributes fairly according to their means, but I suspect tax evasion and the cash-in-hand economy disrupt the ideal model.

You and I cant ensure this happens but is this not the job of the elected goverment, didnt May say as much outside number 10 during her first media appearance?

Welwyn Hatfield Council has now decided to charge for garden waste collection (brown bins) without separate collection of food waste, and will therefore legally have to tell residents to put food waste in the black residual waste bins.

The fact that this is a backward step environmentally and also financially for the council-tax payer has now been underlined by a Report to be presented to the Herts County Council Waste Management Panel on Feb 7. Herts County Council has the responsibility for dealing with the waste that is collected by Welwyn Hatfield Council.

The report to the HCC Panel makes clear that WHBC, as a member of the Herts Waste Partnership, had agreed last April to an Organic Waste Framework with the principles that “Any changes to arrangements for the collection of organic waste should avoid, as far as possible, an increase in the amount of organic waste going to disposal. Boroughs and Districts will consider the practicality of implementing food waste collection services prior to the implementation of charges for the collection of garden waste.”

WHBC has now set up a system of collection that does increase the amount of organic waste going to disposal, because food waste will be going into the black residual waste bins. Unlike other local councils in Hertfordshire who are charging for brown bin collection, WHBC has not implemented food waste collection services.

The HCC Report also states that “Redirection of food waste from the organic waste stream and back into the residual waste stream could be considered as environmentally irresponsible. Although the majority of residual waste in Hertfordshire is now disposed of by Energy from Waste facilities, a proportion of the total waste managed is stillsent to landfill. Land-filling of food waste is known to have a detrimental effect on the environment with the decomposition of food waste causing odour and production of methane.”

The HCC Report also clearly states that the movement of food waste back into the residual waste stream is counter to the agreed objective of managing waste according to the Waste Hierarchy. In this hierarchy, landfill and incineration are much worse environmentally than recycling and composting.

The HCC Report also makes clear that Disposal of food in the residual waste is significantly more expensive than AD or IVC, therefore increasing costs to the council-tax payer. Anaerobic Digestion, used for food collected separately, for which there is a new plant at Coursers Farm near Colney Heath, costs £40 a tonne. In-Vessel Composting, for food and garden waste mixed, for which there is a plant at South Mimms, costs £47 a tonne. However, residual waste costs £95 to dispose of by incineration, and £102 to landfill, not including the transport costs.

Welwyn Hatfield Council, by charging for garden waste collection without separate collection of food waste, will be damaging the environment and increasing waste disposal costs for the council-taxpayer. WHBC Conservative councillors urge us to avoid food waste and to use home composting if possible, which is right. However, not all food waste, such as tea-bags, egg-shells and vegetable peelings, can be avoided; not everyone has the space or ability for home composting; and some foods, including meat, should not be put in home-composters.

If WHBC is determined to charge for garden waste collection, then they must move as soon as possible to free separate collection of food waste.

What is HCC's interaction with the residual waste stream, apart from setting recommended policy? Does it leave each district to manage its own stream to destination, or are the various streams aggregated towards a common destination? If that were the case, WHBC's unilateral decision would surely cross-contaminate other districts' streams and undermine their sustainability efforts.

Welwyn Hatfield Council, by charging for garden waste collection without separate collection of food waste, will be damaging the environment and increasing waste disposal costs for the council-taxpayer. WHBC Conservative councillors urge us to avoid food waste and to use home composting if possible, which is right. However, not all food waste, such as tea-bags, egg-shells and vegetable peelings, can be avoided; not everyone has the space or ability for home composting; and some foods, including meat, should not be put in home-composters.

Although commendable, I find composting food waste attracts rats and therefore have unfortunately ceased this practice.

This issue appears not to have been discussed but I suspect that if home composting of food waste increases significantly then so will the rat population!

Welwyn Hatfield Council has now decided to charge for garden waste collection (brown bins) without separate collection of food waste, and will therefore legally have to tell residents to put food waste in the black residual waste bins.

The fact that this is a backward step environmentally and also financially for the council-tax payer has now been underlined by a Report to be presented to the Herts County Council Waste Management Panel on Feb 7. Herts County Council has the responsibility for dealing with the waste that is collected by Welwyn Hatfield Council.

...The HCC Report also makes clear that Disposal of food in the residual waste is significantly more expensive than AD or IVC, therefore increasing costs to the council-tax payer. Anaerobic Digestion, used for food collected separately, for which there is a new plant at Coursers Farm near Colney Heath, costs £40 a tonne. In-Vessel Composting, for food and garden waste mixed, for which there is a plant at South Mimms, costs £47 a tonne. However, residual waste costs £95 to dispose of by incineration, and £102 to landfill, not including the transport costs.

So, basically, WHC 'saves' money (by adding more staff and bureaucracy - and giving residents an extra bill to factor into their household budgets) by shifting work and costs on HCC, and additional expense on to residents.

Given HCC was only too willing to 'make money' by a larger-than-needed incinerator and add to the NHS's workload and budgets, to a certain extent, rather gives them a taste of their own selfish medicine.

However, ultimately, all costs will be borne by taxpayers - and given the rise of indirect taxation, like VAT on just about everything - means all of us.

It all supports my point (Reply #78) about the need for having joined up thinking and operating in the national interest, rather than in the interests of narrow remits.

Possible contamination of waste streamsHerts County Council, as Waste Disposal Authority, is responsible for dealing with all the organic and residual waste collected by the ten Districts, including WHBC, which is a Waste Collection Authority.There will not exactly be a contamination problem because of food going in the residual (black bin) waste, as this waste will all go (unsorted) to landfill or incineration. However, there will be contamination in that there will be an increase of methane arising from landfill dumps where this waste is dumped. I think there would be an even larger methane problem if lots of garden waste goes into the residual (black bin) waste, as this will also cause methane at the landfill dumps.There might also be a problem of contamination of the brown bin/garden waste stream, if residents put food waste into it. I’m not sure if WHBC’s brown bin waste will in future be processed by Windrow Composting rather than by In-vessel Composting as it is now. Windrow Composting can be used for pure garden waste, but In-Vessel Composting has to be used for garden waste that has food waste in it, as the heat from the in-vessel process destroys the bacteria. If WHBC’s brown bin garden waste is going to be treated in future by Windrow Composting, then it must not be contaminated by food waste.The other problem for Herts County Council in dealing with waste from the Districts if the Districts change the composition of their collected waste is that HCC has contracts with various companies, using various methods of waste treatment, and these contracts specify a guaranteed minimum tonnage of waste sent to the companies. So it becomes very expensive if the companies have to be paid the same amount even if HCC does not have the minimum tonnage of appropriate waste to send to them. This is why it is essential that all the ten Districts in Herts co-operate over their plans for waste management. The Districts all meet in the Herts Waste Partnership, to try to ensure co-operation. But this doesn’t work if one District does not follow the agreed guidelines.